Sigh... CXT, your faith in your opinions and how much better they are than all the prison authorities in the country is ... um... perhaps just a sign there's point in arguing (it's deja vu all over again). You don't really have the information necessary to discuss jail diets and you don't have the experience necessary for an informed opinion on jail exercise. You seem to think that jails LET their prisoners have drugs, as if they could wave a wand and stop it all, like we do with the national drug problem. You apparently didn't read my comments about how our $ isn't going towards TV; the inmates pay for them. And your comments about sedating prisoners (um, why?) is, well, without any foundation in the real world.

So I'll stick to your questions:

"Don't we own THEM some kind of duty to protect them from being assaulted and raped even killed?"

Yes, I believe we do. There are no 100% guarantees but if a jail tolerates a situation like that and does nothing, they're complicit. The sentance doesn't include rape (or crappy medical care).

"You also ducked the question---why should a seriel [sic] rapist be give such "basic amenites [sic]" when there are law abiding, tax paying citzens that can't afford them."

Because you've deprived them of their freedom and their ability to obtain these things on their own. Jail is about the loss of liberty. People are sentanced to time. They are not sentanced to starvation diets. They are not sentanced to chemical comas. They are not sentanced to 120 degree heat. They are not sentanced to deprivation of healthcare. You take their freedom but you don't get to say "not all americans have health insurance, so you won't get blood pressure pills." That doesn't follow.

Two other points:

--If you can't afford water you sure as heck don't pay taxes.
--Spellcheck is one of those amenities denied to prisoners that you, tax paying law abiding citizen that you are, have access to.

And its funny how your "faith" in various "authorities" depends on how closely they adhere with your own personal ideologies.
When they agree, they are of course infailable experts---and how arrogant for anyone to even think of questioning how they do things.......of course when they disagree such "authorties" are anything but.

But being "complict" does NOTHING to help protect the inmates from even worse predators.
We all know what goes on, we know what happens, we just do nothing about it........and one of the reasons why is exactly what is happing here--actually protecting the inmates from rape and beating would require OTHER restrictions---such as more lockdown and less access to other people--these steps are seen as somehow inhumane....and while people dither and craft of-so-carefully-nuanced postions......people suffer unspeakable acts and assaults upon their persons.....which YOU care nothing about--at least not enough to even discuss doing anything more/better to help them.

Nope, "I" didnt "deprive" ANYONE of their "freedom"---they did that all by themselves by committing crimes--sometimes heinous ones such as rape, child molestation, assualt and murder----THEIR choice---"I" had nothing to do with it.

Besides, AGAIN, there being given luxuary items--such as a weight room and DVD's when normal hard working tax paying people--some of which are undoubtadly THIER VICTEMS--that they can't afford makes little sense and less logic.

"Spell Check"

Huh?.......oh.....yes....... I see, I spell poorly....you got me.

This is what is wrong with people with such a blinding ideological bend......this is a serious topic, serious issues that effect real people....and when their arguments and their ahm.....lets just call it "logic" is shredded, they go right for the insult and invictive.

I guess its hard to be civil to us sadly benighted, poorly spelling souls.....since unlike youself, we are not one of the annointed elite, a special breed of humanity, with rare gifts of insight and perception and intellegence, gifts no doubt granted by the universe itself for the express purpose of saving the world!

Yes, for such a fearfully advanced soul such as yourself, civility to us dirty "commoners", would be too much to ask.

1) CXT: "Don't we own THEM some kind of duty to protect them from being assaulted and raped even killed?"

2) IJ: "Yes, I believe we do. There are no 100% guarantees but if a jail tolerates a situation like that and does nothing, they're complicit. The sentance doesn't include rape (or crappy medical care)."

3) CXT: "But being "complict" does NOTHING to help protect the inmates from even worse predators..[snip]...people suffer unspeakable acts and assaults upon their persons.....which YOU care nothing about--at least not enough to even discuss doing anything more/better to help them."

CXT, your comment in 3 suggests you have not bothered to read my comment in 2, and instead just disagreed with me because that's what you do. Another possibility is that you could look up what complicit means. Either way, you have nothing to be upset about. I supported reasonable steps to protect criminals from harm, and as I mentioned before, I've actually DONE something for them, namely, write jail administration to complain when their medical care is inadequate.

Apology accepted. Moving on:

CXT: "Nope, "I" didnt "deprive" ANYONE of their "freedom"---they did that all by themselves by committing crimes--sometimes heinous ones such as rape, child molestation, assualt and murder----THEIR choice---"I" had nothing to do with it."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

We knowingly deprive citizens of liberty, if due process indicates we should. When we do that, we prevent them from seeking medical care, and according to the SCOTUS, we are obligated to provide it when we deprive them from obtaining it on their own. Good luck changing that!

"Besides, AGAIN, there being given luxuary items--such as a weight room and DVD's when normal hard working tax paying people--some of which are undoubtadly THIER VICTEMS--that they can't afford makes little sense and less logic."

Thank you for emphatically repeating that, but since I've already replied to this issue, you might reason I am aware. They are NOT given DVDs. They are allowed to purchase TVs with their own money--you might recall I suggested manipulating the price to make some extra cash for the jail system. As for weight rooms, as I have already explained, while these might not be mandatory (the inmates do not have a right to them), they may serve useful functions. I suggested that exercise privileges are a useful carrot for jail staff and a bargaining item they use to keep prisoners more cooperative. I based my comments on the opinions of people who actually work in jails. There may be some research on the subject, it may be far from a black and white decision, but it makes little sense for you to declare the practice ridiculous, as it is widely employed by correctional professionals across the country, presumably for some reason.

You're fixated on the fact that prisoners have some things that some noncriminals can't afford, but if you go by that logic, no prisoner would have more than the poorest American, and that means they'd be trapped in a yard with a torn blanket and a shopping cart while they got snowed on, or worse, as some Americans have basically nothing. The list of countries who treat their prisoners poorly based on that mindset, like the list of those that waterboard, is not exactly the kind of company we ought to be keeping.

Sidenote:

Let's think about spellchecking for a moment... its not that it bothers me if someone occasionally makes a gramatical or spelling error [eg, did anyon notice this sentance omitted the apostrophe in it's? thought not]. The spellchecking is a symptom of lack of care, and lack of review. You pound out your post without much thought and dump it on the net unspellchecked unproofread and poorly justified. Case in point: you jumped all over me in your last post for agreeing with you. I'm just suggesting you show fellow posters the respect of a carefully reasoned reply; whether you will is up to you.

Considering how often I rip your posits to logical shreds, probably not the arguement you really want to make here ---its simply a result of differing mediums and lack of time.

Or perhaps I simply don't know how to run a spell checker on line----or I lack the computer skills to "cut and past" my answers....perhaps, in other context I am an object of pity for my lack of computer/typeing skills.
Perhaps I'm dyslexic.......but since I dare to disagree with the annointed elite----it MUST mean that I am unable to offer a "carefully reasoned reply."

Would you mock a man in a verbal debate for having a speech impediment.????
A stutter?
A tic?
Would you consider such a poor person and their disabilty to be a lack of regard for you personally?????

I may be arrogant, but I'm not quite THAT self absorbed----in that regard I'll bow to you mate.

Ok now the rest.

Oh, I read it----even read it again, your willing to call the jail "complict---essentially guilty of a crime but beyond that I still see nothing substantive about how you plan on PROTECTING anyone in proactive fashion...in short you don't and you offer nothing.
Essentially you say:

IJ----"we are not going to protect you or stop the next guy from attacking you---but we will hold the jail responsible for it."

Inmate---"but how is that going to protect me???"

IJ--"Oh, its not, won't protect you at all, won't stop him from doing it again, or the next guy--but maybe you can sue the jail."

Inmate---making shank to to protect himself--- "thanks for nothing there IJ."

What precisely are "resonable steps?
And why is locking demonstratably violent criminals down somehow UN"resonable?????"

"prisioners don't confine themselves"

Brillant.....Matthew Shepard didn't murder himself. His murderers are "confined" because of their acts--presumably you find this acceptable??????
I certainly do.

(IJ, do you really belive your own BS or are you just so obsessed with trying to prove me wrong that you will say anything, no matter how ludicrious?????)

Petty distinctions aside, people CHOSE to kill and rape and molest and beat and rob and steal.
Society has a duty to protect itself from those that prey upon it--those that single out the weak and helpless for murder and abuse......."we confine them" BECAUSE OF THIER ACTS.

Free will is a bitch.

No you didn't answer it-----you flopped some ideology at it and called it an "answer."

There is no "charge" to use the weights that are purchased and maintained at taxpayer expense.

I think that money could be better spent than "allowing" criminals to buy DVDs and TV----at reduced cost I might add.
Perhaps if a prisoner can afford a TV---maybe the old lady he mugged could use one----or he could replace the one he stole...or he could be paying for a college fund for the kids of the women he raped and killed......lots of possible use for same money.

As menioned prior----and what you have already agreed to BTW--prison is supposed to be, in part, PUNISHMENT.
And having easy access to DVD's, TV, Internet etc is hardly punishment---sure you can't leave when you want, but when you can get all the luxuries of home---entertainment, drug, sex, not really all that much of a punishment is it....and no that is not a question.

And those "practices" as you call them also allow rampent violence, widespread sexual assault, gangs essentially running prisons, drug smuggling, beatings, murders, gangs leaders able to run gangs from inside.......clearly their efforts---although to be respected, might need a little improvement.

(AGAIN, interesting to me that in conext with agreement with your ideology, the authorites are "professionals" who "actually do the "work" are held by you to be above question------yet in other context---on other issues, said "professionals" are utterly wrong......odd worldview ot say the least---government authorites are ONLY "authorites" when they agree with you---otherwise they are not.)

BTW, "carrot and stick"---part of the problem here---essentially bribing inmates to "be good and we will give you a toy"---works poorly with kids, my guess is that it works even less well with hardend felons.

"Would you mock a man in a verbal debate for having a speech impediment.[sic]????"

Of course not. The speech impediment isn't due to simple laziness in not spellchecking, which is simple and free; no one doubts you can cut and paste, CXT. Also, the speech impediment doesn't reflect on the content of the speech, whereas your failure to read what you've typed before sending means you make errors like comparing apples and oranges, in this case, a speech impediment someone can't control and doesn't reflect on their preparation or content, and your slapdash approach to posts. NB: I've got nothing more to say about this; miswrite whatever you want on it.

CXT wrote: "IJ----"we are not going to protect you or stop the next guy from attacking you---but we will hold the jail responsible for it."

It's best not to completely fabricate quotes that misrepresent my position, which was that the jail should take reasonable steps to protect their inmates. Reasonable steps doesn't mean that inmates won't be protected (obviously). It doesn't mean that the second attack wouldn't be stopped (obviously). *I* am the one who is sticking up for inmate quality of life, and now, after giving me flack for coddling the inamtes and giving them "luxuries," you invent an opinion of mine that jail assault and rape doesn't even matter. This is completely groundless and basically amounts to libel; I've already given it too much recognition by replying. To answer your followup questions:

"What precisely are "resonable [sic] steps?"

The phrase "reasonable steps" is a way of indicating my interest in protecting inmates, while acknowledging the impossibility of completely protecting someone who's surrounded by convicted criminals, without going into excessive detail. I'm not dumb enough to claim that I have enough jail security experience to describe a comprehensive inmate safety program and demanding a precise list of steps doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But in general, prisoners need to have access to protective confinement if they need and want it; the jail needs to be aggressive about controlling weapons, disputes, and gang relationships to limit fights; they need to aggressively punish offenders, they need to do active surveillance for problems and not just rely on reports coming in, and so on. As a warden for details.

This is a question in need of a proofread. What exactly do you mean? Can inmates be confined to solitary? Tied down? Of course; the question is under what circumstances. And your "chemical coma" idea is laughable from every perspective from inmate rights to implementation issues.

Prisoners do NOT confine themselves... they do not handcuff themselves, they don't try themselves, they don't convict themselves, they don't sentance themselves, they don't transport themselves to prisons with electronically controlled metal gates and ribbon wire and lock themselves in. Duh! They DESERVE confinement, sure, but they are confined by our justice system. If the justice system stopped locking their doors and pointing guns at them THEY WOULD WALK AWAY. Once YOU confine someone you become responsible for their wellbeing on some level. Civilized countries don't torture, starve, leave medically untreated, or otherwise abuse their prisoners. VERY few countries execute them. Those are the facts; I'm not just arguing with you, I'm relating how the system works according to the SCOTUS. If you want to dismiss the SCOTUS as "your own BS," be my guest; it's not me you're making a fool of.

"...Lots of possible use for same money."

Yeah! Genius! If only we had a civil court system so people could sue for damages (that's a joke; we do). Listen, you were opposed to inmates getting "free" TV's because they're convicts. NOW that you've realized those TV's aren't "free," you've decided your anti-TV program is actually some restitution plan. But what if I went to jail for stealing a purse? TRUST ME, I'd have cash left over after returning that purse to buy myself a TV if I wanted. So what are you really suggesting? You don't want inmates to have TV because it makes you mad, and that's that--fine! Complain to our jails and courts or something. I personally am happy to let an inmate watch TV if our wardens believe it makes their work easier and the prisoners foot the bill (I'd throw in other details like limits on the programming, obviously). If that bugs you, start writing senators.

How do you know its "laziness" perhaps its just embassement over a personal handicap?????

In any case, if it bothers you so much---simply don't read my posts---and lets be honest, you don't "really" read them anyway.....as I'll demonstrate below BTW.

Besides I'm tried of your craven attempts to spin the discussion from your lack of thought to my lack of spelling...although again, I would chose the latter rather than the former......in fact I did chose the latter----while you made other choices

Ah, IJ, I "frabricated no quotes---I simple articulated your lack of solution other than to hold the jail complict----again, some simple thinking would tell you that jails are ALREADY "complict" in failing to protect inmates---they have even been sued successfully for failing to protect---but AGAIN, as I already pointed out---does not seem to be doing much to curb the violence, rapes, drugs, gang activity, beatings, and yes, murders.

Its another laser nuanced potion for you IJ---you want to claim it "matters" to you--but you fail to even TRY to articulate even a guess as to how you plan on reducing the assualts etc.........oh you care...just not enough to even POSIT anything substantive.
Oh, you want to be viewed and tell yourself your a caring and thoughtful person....in the ABSTRACT...its the concrete that you drop the ball on.........and as usual with the annointed elite, other people suffer for your lack of resolve.

"resonable steps"

Again, you disagree with what I have being thinking about but insist prisons need to be "agressive"---and that they need to "have access to protective confinment"---which is essentially what I am considering here---glad to have you on board at last. .....told you you don't really read my posts.

Again---this seems to be a pattern--your splitting laser fine hairs on the issues of "confinement"---its a distinction without a difference.
Matthew Shepard murderers CHOSE their acts, they are responsible for their arrest, handcuffing and confinement.
Society has a duty to lock such animals away.......unless you want to argue otherwise.

I am concerned about their "welfare" I want to protect them from other inmates, shield them from gang activty and keep them from drugs etc.

I NEVER suggested that we "starve, torture" or leave ANYONE "medically untreated."
Now whom is making wildly innacurate claims of what the other said??????

(BTW IJ, this a substantive, seriously inaccurate spin on what I have said---perhaps you should spend a little more time on reading comprehension than OCD'ing on spelling???? )

Nope, YOU SAID that inmates buy such entertainment luxury items with their own money----I simple listened to YOU, and suggested that if they had access to such funds, they might be put to better use--perhaps for the benefit of their personal VICTEMS of their criminal activties.
If a rapist has the cash to buy a TV---perhaps the money could be better spent in support programs for rape victems....maybe, just maybe, that is a better use for the money that letting a serial rapist watch the latest DVD's????

I honestly do not understand why you annointed elite are so protective and cuddly to brutal predators that hurt so many innocent people....yet care nothing for the pain and suffering and well-being of their victems.
They target the weakest and most vulnerable members of society and yet here you are--outraged that someone might want to protect others from their violence---even if it means locking them down, outraged that someone might want predators to do without entertainment luxuries so that money might be spent on their victems.

No doubt you strain your arm patting yourself on the back for your supposed humanity and ethics.........but its really pretty far removed from either humanity or ethics....like much of what the annointed elite pretend is noble...its really not, not really...its an abstract, classroom version of applied ethics....one that creates much suffering out here in the real world.

Its just weird...and more than a little sad.....ideology is like poisen to reason....it erodes it little by little until one is reduced to frothing groupthink.
You simply open the ideological handbook to the correct page and ritually chant whatever your supposed to think and feel.

And stright from the aforementioned "The Annointed Elite--a Handbook for the Advanced Soul......page 125...Tips on how to deal with people that actually think things thu."

"When confronted with a person that has the facts, the logic, experience, etc and has the ability to shred ones ideology ....the best thing to do is raise some non-relevent issue--their skin color, gender, hairstyle, regional dialect, spelling errors, mode of dress, glasses, physical frailty, sexual orientation, marital status, education level, etc.
Anything that allows you to twist the discussion to the non-relevent issue........twist the discusion into a discussion about the non-relevent issue.
Blame the non-relevent issue on why you need to end the discussion.
Then sneer....either on your face or in print.
Then run away as fast as possible, using the non-relevent issue to "cover" ones arse as you run to hide under your bed."

from page 127

"Do not answer direct questions..... an annointed's inability to answer well thought out questions asked by informed people will be taken as a sign that we don't actually know everything........this will lead to an erosion of confidence in the annointed as having the answers to all of lifes riddles."

From page 128

"If at all possible twist and spin the statements of the person that is asking informed pointed questions.....much easier to simple accuse him of statements he did not make than to answer informed questions......remember, you have been chosen by the universe itself to save the world......things like accuracy and civility and honest discourse are things for the "little people"---you have advanced beyond such petty concerns."

and from page 130.

"Its very dangerous to confront people that can actually think things thu.....they are unimpressed that we annointed have been chosen by the universe itself to save the world.
They ask all kinds of pointed, well informed questions...and demand equally well considered answers........answers that by and large we annointed don't feel the need to provide.
After all, we are the annointed elite....there is no need to answer the dirty commoners that don't share our special wisdom and unique insight."

IJHow do you know its "laziness" perhaps its just embassement over a personal handicap?????

If you're really embarrassed, try using Firefox (available at www.firefox.com). It underlines words in red when they're misspelled (in places where you type in text like this). I don't run an actual spell check on my posts, I just fix words that are highlighted in red. It's pretty easy and you'll never have to worry about being embarrassed by your handicap again.

Moreover, it appears to me that you start out constructing coherent arguments and using passable grammar and spelling, but as the discussion goes on both the quality of your writing and the coherence of your argument seem to deteriorate. That's just the pattern I've noticed over a couple debate threads.

The point at which I bow out is when it appears that you are just skimming the posts you're responding to. I'll tolerate bad spelling and grammar, personal attacks and snide remarks, but if it seems that you aren't even reading what I'm writing, then it becomes a waste of time.

I feel the same way Val---the point where you start contridicting yourself, ... and failing to remain consistant with your own expressed logic is where I start to lose interest.

I challenge you to find two quotes from me on this subject that are in contradiction. And no, para-phrasing what I've said won't cut it, because that's too open to manipulation. If you're confident that what I've said is contradictory or inconsistent you should be able to line up two quotes back to back that exemplify this.

Quote:

From my perspective its not "skimming" that is the problem---the problem is that I actually read what is posted and highlight accordingly----contridictions and all.

Okay, well that's not how it comes across.

In this thread you said "I think that money could be better spent than allowing criminals to buy DVDs and TV" I don't see how it's possible to say that as a response to what I've said. I said that amenities (such as DVD and TV privileges) probably save the prison money. It's just not a logical response to answer that such money is best spent elsewhere because it ignores the whole concept that it's a net gain, not a net loss.

A logical retort might be that it is not, in fact, a net gain, doesn't save the prison money, and that things like DVD and TV privileges don't reduce the amount of security required. I might disagree, but I wouldn't think you're just ignoring what I'm saying. Or you might argue that that the extra cost of not allowing DVDs is worth it for the sake of sticking it to the prisoners. Again, I'd disagree, but at least that response takes into account what I've said.

Similarly in the torture thread I was saying that water boarding shouldn't happen to anybody and that you're not morally obligated to give up a kidney to a stranger. And in response you suggested that I "get" to water board you and then give up my kidney. That just makes no sense at all. It's like I'm saying "I'm allergic to cats but I love my dog" and you say "well in that case I'll let you take my tabby and I'll take your retriever" It's just completely missing the point.

It's things like that which make me think you aren't really paying attention, sometimes.

I really don't want to do this----you have almost no chance of coming up with the stuff you accused me of.

Because at THAT POINT its not a question of "net gain and net loss".......nobody has really run the numbers to verify or deny that......my point was that it is money that could be spent elsewhere.....and as far as I'm concerned, ethically I would chose victems over criminals.

Actually that is not even close to what I said about the whole "waterboard and kidney" thing........that is a horrible miscast of the context and what I actually said.....you don't think it makes any sense because you:

A-Didn't really read it.

B-You didn't really put it into context with your own posits and expressed opinions.

But if you want to rehash the whole thing----an example, think I think is competely contridictory for you to quote a expert that feels that waterbording is...I belive the phrase was "neccessery"......then refuse to accept him at his word.
He was your expert after all....so either he knows what he doing and his opinion of waterboarding being "torture" AND his opinion that its needed are correct.....or his opinion can't be trusted....in which case BOTH of his opinions are worthless.

I really don't want to do this----you have almost no chance of coming up with the stuff you accused me of.

What stuff? Ask me to provide backup on something you consider an accusation, and I will. I think you don't want to try to provide an example of self-contradictory statements because you can't. If you really think that my statements are contradictory you should have the courage to back it up. Contradictory statements are the easiest things to debunk, all you have to do is quote them.

Quote:

Because at THAT POINT its not a question of "net gain and net loss".......nobody has really run the numbers to verify or deny that......my point was that it is money that could be spent elsewhere.....and as far as I'm concerned, ethically I would chose victems over criminals.

Option 2 (no dvds requires more guard):$0 on DVDs$20 on guards$0 free to spend on whatever.

You can disagree that it works out this way, but saying "spend the dvd money on something else" does not work. Until we agree on whether DVDs are a net loss or a net gain it makes no sense at all to talk about whether it's money well spent. Do you understand why?

Quote:

Actually that is not even close to what I said about the whole "waterboard and kidney" thing........

I don't want to rehash this and I know that what I wrote does not encompass the whole of your argument on that subject. It was a long discussion with many branches.

However, the basic fact that you thought your deal was one I should take given my position shows me that you really didn't understand at all what I was saying. There's no way you could think that the deal you offered was consistent with my values if you had actually grasped what those values are. Now I'd prefer to assume it's a problem with my exposition and that you really did read it, but sometimes it's hard to believe. What ultimately made me give up on that conversation is the fact that you don't accept the concept of emotional/psychological trauma. To me, that's like not accepting gravity.

Anyway, I don't really want to rehash the torture thread. The kidney/water boarding deal was just meant to be a second example of a time when you said something so out of left field that it made me think you weren't bothering to try and understand what I'd said. Follow up as you will but I don't intend to discuss this tangent any further.

Not doing this here, you want to re-open an old thread GO THERE to do it.
You had more than enough of a chance to get your points in months ago.....you chose otherwise.

I already "backed them up" BTW months ago on the orginal thread.

(My point with the kidney thing was to illustrate your claims of the supposed horrors of waterboarding and your attendent claims of it being ineffective and your self perception of being a person driven by the noblest of ethics.....were false.
My being willing to endure it provided that you step up and do the noble thing.
That you didn't/don't grasp that is more proof your not reading what I post.)

Again, Val please try and read what has been said....your mixing up posits and doing so without the context

IJ posited that criminals buy their own luxuries--such as TV's and DVD's....I merely suggest that if criminals have such funds. available......enough to buy luxury items....then said funds could probably put to better use.

If you have a problem with that...take it up with IJ....it was HIS post I was commenting on.

The assumption that "no DVD's requires more guards" is also suspect....that is a CLAIM not a fact.......if you have hard stats on lack of DVD's requireing more guards then please produce them.....and where I can check the numbers.

(In addition, your math problem is highly suspect as it assumes facts not in evidence.)

(Besides, If inmates are rioting and are harder to control if they don't have their DVD's...then clearly bribary is not really working....just as it fails to work with children...clearly the dynamic of just why criminals are in prison to start with is awry.)

In any case, your (AGAIN) ignoring the context........I'm positing that there may be more effective ways of controlling violent crimnals than catering to their whims....such as locking them down most of the time....see, problem solved you need fewer guards in that case, not more.

Besides......instead of watching TV and DVD's....perhaps the inmates time would be better spent in learning a trade, reading a book, getting their GED, or BA...etc

See, part of the problem here is that your making assumptions on nothing changing in how we manage prisions........your assumeing status quo....and I'm not.

My fundemantal postion here is thinking about how we might make prisons more effective----in terms inmate safety, protecting society, and being more cost effective.

Again, your not really reading my posts, otherwise you would know I that is what I'm doing here.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum